the_mysterious_mr_enterfandomcom-20200214-history
Toy-Based Cartoons: An Analysis
One of the most, let's call it derided, aspects of cartoons today are how toys seem to control them. We've seen shows cancelled because their toy lines tanked, or they never could get their show made because their toys appealed to the wrong audience, or Pixar makes a Cars 3 (and trust me, we'll be talking about both Pixar and Cartoon Network in this regard). That being said, I've already made the claim that toy-based cartoons essentially saved television animation in the 80's, Hasbro's current shows seem to be a huge success, and I don't think anyone really opposes toys based on their cartoon (if they are, it's usually because said cartoon was for adults and the toys were aimed at kids). So, are toy-based cartoons good or bad? Well let's start with the easy part: when toy lines get their own cartoons. I think that it's understandable a cartoon literally made to boost the sales of another medium would live or die based on how much toys they can sell. If you want an example, just look at the My Little Pony franchise. During G3, the toys were doing fine and most people (not in the target audience) considered the show bad, or at best "not for them." And even in generation 4, Hasbro seems to consider the toy-line more important than the show. At the very least, they treat their toy-based cartoons better than their non-toy-based cartoons. Yeah, I'm talking about Dan Vs. And you know what, I'm not really sure that many people care about this. Why would they? Hasbro is a toy company. Their main prerogative is to sell toys. That's where they get the majority of their money. In other words: they're honest about what they're doing. And sometimes a cartoon made just to sell toys can turn out to be more successful than you could even imagine. Just look at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. And even though Pokemon is a video game, not a toy, the anime was made primarily to sell the video games. If you've noticed, for the most part, the rules in the video games are the same as in the anime, although there is some discrepancies here and there. No, you cannot use thundershock on an onix and expect to win. It... won't happen. (Even though the episode does try to justify this, by super powering Pikachu with a water wheel). Microsoft later tried to do the exact same thing with Viva Pinata, but the game and the cartoon had absolutely nothing to do with each other besides the style. And here's the thing: both Viva Pinata and Pokemon can be very complex games. Both of them needed something like a show that could help younger audiences better access their game, but it seemed like Microsoft failed to realize that part when they tried to get their own Pokemon-esque franchise. I dare say, if the cartoon actually explained how to play Viva Pinata better than the actual game (which once again has an in-game tutorial that LIES to you! But then again, I always thought that ghost was supposed to beat psychic ) then Viva Pinata could have had a very successful franchise, besides just being a cult thing. I think that most people feel that toys or video games or comics becoming cartoons are okay. It's the other way that gives people problems. In the recent years, otherwise decent shows have been cancelled due to poor toy sales by companies that weren't toy companies. Also, there's that Cars 3 and Toy Story 4 thing that happened. Let's talk about Pixar first because it's easier... and at least makes a little more sense. This decade has not been very kind to Pixar. Just with me, the only Pixar movie I've looked forward to since Toy Story 3 was Inside Out. Which I haven't seen, so don't spoil! Why is that? Before this movie, everything after Pixar was a sequel (and yes, I am counting Brave in that category. It's at least a spiritual sequel.) Let's just be up front here: Cars 2 & 3, Toy Story 4, Monsters University, and Finding Dory are most likely driven by the merchandise. Cars 2 DEFINITELY is. I don't know why a company who's most successful franchise (critically) is about toys doing this surprises me, but it does. There is no legitimate reason for Pixar to make films to sell toys. I don't care if the Cars franchise makes over a billion dollars in toy revenue. Why is that? Oh I don't know, maybe because Disney also makes a shit ton in merchandise and has never made a canon film just to sell toys. Even their worst, most pandering products came out of the effort of trying to make a movie, instead of selling toys. Yes, Disney has cheapquels, but guess what, with the Planes movies, Pixar has that option too. Instead they're spending millions of dollars on big-budget toy commercials. I mean, Pixar's actions doesn't even make sense logically. Wouldn't it be more profitable to make a new IP? You don't lose the toy line of a previous movie just because you decide to work on something new. You can keep selling and making toys of Cars until they stop selling... and it's going to be a long time before that happens because they're cars and car toys will always be popular. I'd understand if Pixar was doing something like Nintendo does. You know all of those Mario games (kart, platformers, parties) that a lot of people say have become kind of copy-paste? Well, their MONSTROUS sales allow Nintendo to make things like Xenoblade Chronicles, the Animal Crossing series, Endless Ocean. Games that are an absolute risk and may not return an investment, but their cash-cow franchises allow them to go into these risks with total confidence. Pixar doesn't do that. They don't use Cars 2 to fund something like the next Fantasia, or something completely off the wall. They use Cars 2 to sell more Cars toys, and that is literally it. But that's the realm of cinema, where there never has been a legit excuse for animation companies to kneel at the altar of toy profit. What about television, where it was saved? Well, before we can do that, we have to ask... are toy-sales still necessary for a television series to be profitable? The answer is no. I hope that's the answer you immediately got. No, toy sales are not important for animation to be profitable. Why is that? Two main reasons. # Computers: Back in the 80's and before, you couldn't really use a computer to animate. Today? I don't know any company (in America at least) that doesn't use computers. Even if it was traditionally animated movie, it's still put together on a computer. And let's not forget Flash, which made animating even LESS expensive. The cost of good animation has gone down substantially over the years. # Other Means of Income: It's called digital distribution. Like, you don't know how much of a game changer that is. Look at how much it changed pop music in the 2000's decade. Most companies seem to understand this. It's very rare to find a new show that you can't buy from Amazon instant. On top of that, there's also season collection DVD's. Sell the soundtracks for all I care (Spongebob does sell compilation CD's of their songs). All of these can be done, regardless of the show without affecting the show in any way. And yet... well, let's be honest here, there's only one company that seems to have a problem: Cartoon Network. Not even Viacom seems to have this problem Cartoon Network. Let me level with you, because you seem to be suffering from a very serious delusion. Your friends and family didn't want to tell you this because they were afraid you couldn't handle the truth. YOU ARE NOT A FUCKING TOY COMPANY. I don't know where this stupid idea weaseled its way into your head, but my God. Why does it seem like Cartoon Network wants to be everything BUT a cartoon network. I'm beginning to think that the reason the stopped getting live action shows was because they weren't making enough toys (there's actually legitimate evidence to that conclusion). You've heard the stories, haven't you? Tower Prep (not a cartoon, but whatever) was cancelled... not because it didn't sell enough toys, but because it didn't sell enough toys towards boys. They don't want shows with female protagonists because boys don't buy those toys, and they don't want to sell to girls... for some reason. I cannot wait for Star vs. the Forces of Evil to eclipse Adventure Time ''in popularity. I wouldn't exactly call this sexism. It's more like... stupidity. What, is the network afraid that girls have cooties or something? Which reminds me.... Hello ''Teen Titans Go!, another TOY-BASED move. Apparently Young Justice was aiming at too old of an audience: "We wanna go after little kids, who are into—boys who are into goofy humor, goofy random humor, like on Adventure Time or Regular Show. We wanna do that goofy, that’s where we’re going for." (You can find this quote many places online. It's by Paul Dini) Cartoon Network, you don't want to go down that road. I've been down that road. It's called Breadwinners. Making those kinds of assertions is insulting to the audience that you're aiming for. Now I've gotten that quote, and many others like it, from various news sources. It quite frankly, made my brain rot. There will be a time to talk about all of this we-want-only-boy stuff later (and I'll be looking forward to the chance when I get to review your next addition to the Madballs series). I don't have time in this article. What I'll say is that... seeking only profit doesn't really work out when you're excluding a specific audience... a large audience. It's half the fucking population-- They cancelled Young Justice, a show more aimed towards teenagers, because the toys they weren't getting the sales they wanted (maybe they didn't have enough even numbers, I don't know). They cancelled Green Lantern because... toys. Sym-Bionic Titan was cancelled for the sole reason that it DIDN'T have a toy-line. These people do know that... cartoons can make money via methods besides toys, right? This is actually a rather dangerous precedent that Cartoon Network is setting. If you want to work with them, you have to adapt to a toy-line potential. That pigeon-holes creators, short cuts series, and if Hasbro's recent juggernauts have proven anything, hurts your bottom line in the long run. If I can make a connection: toy-lines are kind of like the horse-and-buggy. At one point, you needed one to get anywhere in the world. Then the automobile came along. In this analogy, the automobile is cheaper-to-produce animation and other revenue sources. Sticking with your horse and buggy will get you out-sped by all of the competition, and it would be stupid not to move on from older, out-dated practices. I think it's safe to say that we don't need to do this anymore, and the people who are clinging to it, seem to be harming their output in the... well, both the long run and the short run. With these attitudes, I'm actually legitimately worried about Cartoon Network. If I hear of another one of their shows cancelled due to "poor toy-sales" then I will definitely dedicate a month to them. It will most likely be admirables of the shows that got the shaft on the altar of toys, but whatever. I'm not opposed to any merchandise based on cartoons, provided that it has nothing to do with the cartoon's success or failure. If the toy-line fails, but the cartoon is successful--end the stupid toy-line, and continue the show. It's not that fucking hard. I'd say stop buying toys, but if you guys did that Cartoon Network would be like... static 24/7. This is a tricky problem. I don't even know how you'd fix this. Oh, and yes, I have heard about the Powerpuff Girls' reboot. Considering Teen Titans Go, I don't want Cartoon Network to reboot anything ever again. Not until they get their act together. Also, the redesigns look like some of the clones from Knock It Off. Category:Miscellaneous